Pages

September 4, 2007

Hansack Joining Red Sox

Devern Hansack, who closed out the 2006 season with a rain-shortned, five-inning, 9-0 no-hitter against the Orioles will join the Red Sox on Tuesday. For the PawSox this year, the Sack had a 3.61 ERA and 131 strikeouts in 139.2 innings.

Tim Wakefield expects to make his scheduled start on Thursday in Baltimore. Doug Mirabelli, who is "tending to a serious family matter", should be back, if needed.

I love fire joe morgan.com - he says what we all think! and makes me cozy in the fact that i know that other people are sane. i thoroughly enjoyed the little buck-mcmoron convo there too.

wilbur does have a point in a way - there isn't the type of emotion as there was in 2004, but the rest of the article (i just read the quotes) is a complete jubilee of retardation.

my reasons for why the emotion isn't as high-pitched as 2004 (and some additional points not mentioned on fire joe):

-kevin millar-personalities in general: 2004 had damon, millar, lowe, nixon, pedro - 2007 has coco, yook, lowell, dice-k, beckett, drew - just because their not as "fun" or even "fun" in a different way, isn't reason to write an article about how they wont win the world series-they did it in 2004. all the pent up frustration has been let out-they've been comfortably leading the division all summer, in 04 it was a race to the end to snag the wild card, and i really dont think i need to bring up the hole they were in in the ALCS - if anything ignites passion, that'll do it

-the whole passion argument he presents is BS - just because the team doesn't gallavant around the field like "idiots" they wont win?-they dont have that many walk off wins, therefore they wont win the world series - i didnt think the world series winner was chosen by virtue of walk off wins during the regular season-encompassing all the previous points i made, this team clearly does show passion when passion is due. i.e. clay's no hitter, the mother's day miracle, etc. etc. just because they aren't huddling round the plate jumping up and down after all 83 wins doesn't mean the team isn't passionate.

i think the passion exudes from the fact that they HAVE 83 wins, the magic number is 18, they have a fucking 7 game lead in the division, they're winning big without their biggest hitter and their OTHER biggest hitter having an off year full of injuries, the amazing job the pitching has done all year, and i could go on and on and on.

without players taking passion in their performance, the 2007 boston red sox would not be in any position similar to the one they are in now.

this man seems to think passion only comes from huddling at the plate, or papi bear hugs, or manny flipping burgers for a handshake. those are examples of players having FUN while they're playing. passion cannot be measured, but the performance of the TEAM is a damn good indicator of how much passion, how much confidence, and how much they put into performing each night.

yes, they were badly outplayed in NY but theres no reason to write as idiotic of an article as this one.

there is a great discussion at sosh about this season and the different kinds of fans and their reactions.

this is a very steady team -- no big losing streaks, no big winning streaks -- we just win.

also, the 2004 team was *beyond* frustrating until they got hot in august -- plus they were almost swept in the alcs. it had the happiest ending possible, but 2004 was not nearly a joy ride from start to finish.

"Web hits" and instant "post reader comments" will be the death knell of reasoned analysis, particularly sports. Some writers just throw out shit in order to get instant reactions. Enough of those and you can tell your editor you deserve a raise--or get more paid gigs on your local talk radio. If these people actually have access to the players and can do no better than this, the whole industry will be in trouble (oh wait, it is). Good thing we can watch the games ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

I guess the only possible way to be negative about the non-streaky nature of this team is that extremely streaky teams could do better in the playoffs. For instance, I would give the series advantage to the yanks ON their game vs. the 07 sox average season. Obviously, when the streaky team is off, they have no chance. But in the playoff small series, it is not only luck but also hotness that defines the winner.Of course, how "hot" the team is is not under their control, so it's not like you can say since the hot yanks would beat the sox they will win it.

I don't think that made much sense. Probably because I'm searching for a negative angle while my personal opinion is positive.